Monday, February 25, 2008

Clinton, Obama on Lawrence King's Death

I have to say that few things have really pulled at me like Lawrence King's death. It seems like every time I think society's making great progress and is nearly ready to fully accept glbt people, some innocent kid or teen gets murdered for being gay. King should be a rallying cry for the country to pass the Matthew Shepard law, but the Republicans seem content to let more Lawrence Kings pass on. In any event, I'm glad the Obama and Clinton campaigns have finally weighed in, both calling for federal hate crime bills that extend to all glbt people.

Clinton sums it up:
We must finally enact a federal hate crimes law to ensure that gay, lesbian and transgender Americans are protected against violent, bias-motivated crimes. We must send a unified message that hate-based crime will not be tolerated.

7 comments:

joe said...

You need to reality check something that will help, and I mean this. No matter how accepting and "progressive" a society is, there will always been murders, hate, bigotry and all that. The fact that there is outcry over this, whereas decades ago it would be shoo shoo'd should be enough for you to see how far we've come.

joe said...

Oh, also, Clinton is wrong. A hate crimes law won't stop hate crimes. Have hope, but don't be an unrealistic dreamer.

Ryan Adams said...

Joe, I well realize there are always going to be crazies out there. But, the fact of the matter is, when it comes to glbt issues, it extends well beyond that.

Also, a death is only the worst form of a hate crime and maybe hate crimes won't stop the crazies, but it could prevent lots other crimes and criminals. At the very least, it sends a message to the country that violence/criminal activity directed toward any minority simply because they're a member of that minority is not and will not be accepted.

cranberrycynic said...

While the crimes are certainly reprehensible, I question the wisdom and constitutionality of criminalizing a thought.

Look at the Ezra Levant deacle Canada is embroiled in right now.

laurel said...

dear cranberry,
hate crimes laws are already on the book protecting people based on religion, race, etc. if such laws were unconstitutional, it is funny, don't you think, that no one is marching them up to the supreme court. funny that no one raises the ludicrous cry of "thought crime" until the lgbt category is about to be added to the list. yeah, funny, that.

Anonymous said...

What happens when a kid in school is both a geek and gay. He gets beat up, reprehensible to be sure, but how do you know the intent of the abuser? Did he get picked on because he's a geek, then there's a lesser sentence.

laurel said...

well anon, if the criminal shouts "F-in geeks" during the commission of the crime, it is not a hate crime. if the criminal shouts "f-in faggot" during the commission of the crime, it is a hate crime. you see, you know the intent of the criminal by the criminal's own communications (words written, spoken or carved). very easy.

About Ryan's Take